M
Mike Vandeman
Guest
At 06:25 PM 10/9/04 -0400, Max Breslow wrote:
>Mr. Vandeman, I just finished reading your article, and must say, I am shocked
and appalled at the allegations you make towards mountain bikers.
They are all true.
> I have riden a bike for nearly all my lifetime, most of which has been on off
road trails. I have grown up with an appreciation of nature, and the
wilderness.
That's a contradiction. People who care about nature don't destroy it.
> I have hiked, canoed, camped, and biked throughout the land where I grew up.
It pains me to see the destruction that is happening to our surroundings on a
daily basis: suburaban sprawl, deforestation, strip mining, etc etc. Mountain
bikers do not contribute to the destruction of the wilderness as you so claim.
You don't know what you are talking about. See
http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb7.htm.
> It would not be in out best interest to allow this destruction to occur, as we
find solitude, comfort and pleasure in this wilderness.
While you are destroying it.
> Take the North Shore of B.C. as an example.
That's a good example. Illegal mountain biking, trailbuilding, and destruction
of nature ara rampant there.
> The reason trails are built as they are out there, is from a desire to not
ride over fragile areas, think about this when you try to claim that mountain
bikers destroy the land. In your article you make reference to equestrial trail
users. Horses are large, heavy animals that rip trails apart.
Just as mountain bikes do.
> Have you ever see the damage a horse will do to a semi wet trail? A mountain
bike, in comparison leaves a very small footprint.
BS. See the article I cited.
>You claim that mountain bikers are lazy. How can someone with a Ph.D, who must
hold some logical and critical though beleive this? Biking is a sport that
require immense physical effort.
A biker can ride 50-100 miles in a day. Try HIKING that far, and you will see
that you are lazy, by biking rather than hiking. It is MUCH easier to bike that
far.
> To ride on a trail for 4 or 5 hours at a time one cannot be lazy, to build a
trail takes incredible devotion, and physical and mental effort.
Less than to hike the same distance.
> If you wish to label someone as lazy, maybe it should be the millions of kids
who spend their days infront of a TV, never being exposed to nature, making them
more likely as an adult to shrug off the damage being done to our environment on
an irreversable level by big business and industry. You state, Why Ride a bike,
when you can walk? Following that logic, why walk when you can crawl? It would
take MUCH more effort, making you less lazy, and you would get to your
destination much slower. I guess you are right, that Does seem like the most
logical thing to do. This argument is possibly the weakest thing I have read in
your article.
BS. It's FACT. Try asking a mountain biker to WALK as far as he bikes. They are
too lazy to do that. That's why they use a bike: they can go farther with the
same effort.
>You also discuss the 'Image Enhancer" of mountain biking. Once again, someone
with the level of education you hold should realize that the names a company
gives their bikes is stricktly for marketing. This does not reflect the
personality of a rider.
It reflects what appeals to mountain bikers.
> I ride a bike called a Bigfoot, does that mean that I'm big, burly and
menacing as the name implies? No, it does not. In fact, I am a humble,
openminded, introvert.
Openminded? You are completely closed-minded about mountain biking.
> While you claim these bikes help portray an image of "I'm Tough, Dont Cross
Me!", does the huge smile on most riders faces not prove this wrong?
No, it disappears instantly, if you tell them that they are not alowed to bike
there.
> When was the last time you saw a typical 'Tough Guy' looking relaxed, happy
and calm? Your argument simply does not hold up.
It's called "arrogance".
>Mountain bikers wish to have the same access to trails as anyone.
You are a liar. You already have the same access as everyone else. The rules for
bikes are no different than for anyone else.
> We pay the same taxes as hikers and equestrians, we feel that we have just as
much right to use trails as they do.
You DO: ON FOOT!
> The effort that mountain bikers put into trail maintenance is a clear
indicator of the love we have for our sport and the surroundings it takes place
in.
BS. It's called "brown-nosing".
>In closeing, You have obivously never experienced the feeling of standing at a
trailhead where you can see incredible mountains as far as the eye can see,
I do that all the time.
> or the feeling of gliding down a tight flowing singletrack, the sound of trees
and streams rushing by you.
Why would anyone in their right mind want those things "rushing by"??? That
means that you can't possibly appreciate them.
> The connection felt with nature in these situations is undescribable. I hope
that you will eventually see the light, and instead of attacking a group which
is fundamental in keeping nature as it is,
BS. You are destroying it, and looking the other way.
>you will focus your negative energy on fighting against the damage that major
industries are doing to our planet every single day.
>I hope you take the time to consider what I have writen.
I did. It's pure BS. You are foling NO ONE.
>Max Breslow
===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)
http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
>Mr. Vandeman, I just finished reading your article, and must say, I am shocked
and appalled at the allegations you make towards mountain bikers.
They are all true.
> I have riden a bike for nearly all my lifetime, most of which has been on off
road trails. I have grown up with an appreciation of nature, and the
wilderness.
That's a contradiction. People who care about nature don't destroy it.
> I have hiked, canoed, camped, and biked throughout the land where I grew up.
It pains me to see the destruction that is happening to our surroundings on a
daily basis: suburaban sprawl, deforestation, strip mining, etc etc. Mountain
bikers do not contribute to the destruction of the wilderness as you so claim.
You don't know what you are talking about. See
http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb7.htm.
> It would not be in out best interest to allow this destruction to occur, as we
find solitude, comfort and pleasure in this wilderness.
While you are destroying it.
> Take the North Shore of B.C. as an example.
That's a good example. Illegal mountain biking, trailbuilding, and destruction
of nature ara rampant there.
> The reason trails are built as they are out there, is from a desire to not
ride over fragile areas, think about this when you try to claim that mountain
bikers destroy the land. In your article you make reference to equestrial trail
users. Horses are large, heavy animals that rip trails apart.
Just as mountain bikes do.
> Have you ever see the damage a horse will do to a semi wet trail? A mountain
bike, in comparison leaves a very small footprint.
BS. See the article I cited.
>You claim that mountain bikers are lazy. How can someone with a Ph.D, who must
hold some logical and critical though beleive this? Biking is a sport that
require immense physical effort.
A biker can ride 50-100 miles in a day. Try HIKING that far, and you will see
that you are lazy, by biking rather than hiking. It is MUCH easier to bike that
far.
> To ride on a trail for 4 or 5 hours at a time one cannot be lazy, to build a
trail takes incredible devotion, and physical and mental effort.
Less than to hike the same distance.
> If you wish to label someone as lazy, maybe it should be the millions of kids
who spend their days infront of a TV, never being exposed to nature, making them
more likely as an adult to shrug off the damage being done to our environment on
an irreversable level by big business and industry. You state, Why Ride a bike,
when you can walk? Following that logic, why walk when you can crawl? It would
take MUCH more effort, making you less lazy, and you would get to your
destination much slower. I guess you are right, that Does seem like the most
logical thing to do. This argument is possibly the weakest thing I have read in
your article.
BS. It's FACT. Try asking a mountain biker to WALK as far as he bikes. They are
too lazy to do that. That's why they use a bike: they can go farther with the
same effort.
>You also discuss the 'Image Enhancer" of mountain biking. Once again, someone
with the level of education you hold should realize that the names a company
gives their bikes is stricktly for marketing. This does not reflect the
personality of a rider.
It reflects what appeals to mountain bikers.
> I ride a bike called a Bigfoot, does that mean that I'm big, burly and
menacing as the name implies? No, it does not. In fact, I am a humble,
openminded, introvert.
Openminded? You are completely closed-minded about mountain biking.
> While you claim these bikes help portray an image of "I'm Tough, Dont Cross
Me!", does the huge smile on most riders faces not prove this wrong?
No, it disappears instantly, if you tell them that they are not alowed to bike
there.
> When was the last time you saw a typical 'Tough Guy' looking relaxed, happy
and calm? Your argument simply does not hold up.
It's called "arrogance".
>Mountain bikers wish to have the same access to trails as anyone.
You are a liar. You already have the same access as everyone else. The rules for
bikes are no different than for anyone else.
> We pay the same taxes as hikers and equestrians, we feel that we have just as
much right to use trails as they do.
You DO: ON FOOT!
> The effort that mountain bikers put into trail maintenance is a clear
indicator of the love we have for our sport and the surroundings it takes place
in.
BS. It's called "brown-nosing".
>In closeing, You have obivously never experienced the feeling of standing at a
trailhead where you can see incredible mountains as far as the eye can see,
I do that all the time.
> or the feeling of gliding down a tight flowing singletrack, the sound of trees
and streams rushing by you.
Why would anyone in their right mind want those things "rushing by"??? That
means that you can't possibly appreciate them.
> The connection felt with nature in these situations is undescribable. I hope
that you will eventually see the light, and instead of attacking a group which
is fundamental in keeping nature as it is,
BS. You are destroying it, and looking the other way.
>you will focus your negative energy on fighting against the damage that major
industries are doing to our planet every single day.
>I hope you take the time to consider what I have writen.
I did. It's pure BS. You are foling NO ONE.
>Max Breslow
===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)
http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
